Articles Posted in Evidence

As we’ve mentioned in earlier posts, Maryland takes a criminal’s right to trial by jury very seriously. While deliberating, however, jurors may need instruction from the trial judge. If a question is asked of the trial judge, any answer the judge gives must accurately state the law, respond to the jury’s question, but still permit the jury to decide the case.

Often a juror’s question concerns the law related to the evidence. However, a jury may also ask about the absence of something in the evidence. In a recent case, a man was on trial for second degree assault, committed against his girlfriend. The girlfriend testified that the man often came home drunk and hit her. On the day in question, he cursed at her, threw a glass at her, started hitting her with his fists and kicked her until she ran outside and hid.

She called 911 and in the call stated he had hit her in the head and was throwing her things into the street. When the police came they ordered the man to leave the property and told the woman to go back inside. Later the man returned and beat her again. She again ran and called 911. Continue reading

A few months ago, this blog featured a discussion on Maryland v. King, a case that was then only pending before the United States Supreme Court. To refresh readers’ memories: A criminal defendant appealed a rape conviction that occurred only because Maryland police were able to take a cheek swab of his DNA as part of his arrest for an assault. They matched this sample with DNA evidence gathered in a rape from six years before.

The Maryland Court of Appeals overturned the defendant’s conviction on the grounds that these routine cheek swabs violated the Fourth Amendment right against illegal search and seizure. The State appealed the ruling. On June 3, the Supreme Court reinstated the conviction and affirmed the State’s right to gather DNA on a routine basis.

The Supreme Court’s majority opinion, written by Justice Kennedy, compared DNA sampling of the arrested to fingerprinting, which is legal. Justice Kennedy wrote that states could collect DNA from people arrested for “serious offenses.”  The majority opinion also reasoned that Maryland’s law supported the “well established” governmental interest of identifying people in custody as opposed to solving crimes.

Three justices typically regarded as the Court’s liberal justices joined Justice Scalia in the dissent, and Justice Scalia even took the rare step of reading the dissent it from the bench. He warned, “As an entirely predictable consequence of today’s decision, your DNA can be taken and entered into a national DNA database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason.” In his view, the majority ruling did not build in limits. While Maryland only allows fingerprinting for people suspected of violent crime or burglary right now, the ruling is so broad it could permit law enforcement to take DNA from someone suspected of a mere traffic violation in the future. Continue reading